Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Don't speak about the peak
Brisbane City Council is currently embarking on the ‘biggest urban road project proposed in Australia’. Superlatives aside, it’s enough to send a shiver down your spine and Brisbane back to the dark ages.
When the good residents of Brisbane elected Campbell Newman early last year, they trusted he would be the answer their traffic woes. For months prior to the election, Campbell’s beaming face had stared down at them from advertising hoardings, while they fumed in traffic jams. If they just sat tight in their cars for a little longer, he would solve everything, and you would soon be able to drive anywhere, anytime, without frustration.
At face value, the electors appeared to buy it and turned over a strong Labor majority to elect him Lord Mayor, albeit as a minority in his own council Chamber. An engineer – an army engineer – by trade, he was a ‘doer’, a ‘can-do’ man. He sees a problem and he fixes it.
Newman promised tunnels, and lots of them. Tunnels would cure Brisbane’s congestion chaos, currently draining $2.6bn per annum from the local economy. Five tunnels were proposed in all, criss-crossing the city form north to south, east to west, bypassing the city centre.
The scheme is called TransApex. The total cost would be $4.3bn over 20 years. Newman would go to George Street and Canberra and vie for State and Federal funds. The tunnels would be operated and part-funded by the private sector to run as a tolled system. The total public debt would be repaid by 2043.
The TransApex ‘Pre-feasibility Study’ argued that 2/3 of all CBD traffic is just passing through. Existing radial arterial routes are used as shortcuts predominantly by motorists travelling from the north to the west (and vice versa) attempting to avoid congestion on the inadequate Gateway Motorway and the tolled Gateway Bridge and Logan Motorway, which bypass the city to the south and east.
Sending cars underground will also have the added benefit of ‘freeing up’ surface space for public transport and urban renewal.
The first phase of TransApex, the North South Bypass Tunnel and Airport Extension, is now in procurement phase with drilling due to start in the next 12 months. Its costs have already blown-out, indicating the complete TransApex program could balloon to some $6-7 bn.
Councillor Newman declared his election victory gave him a full mandate for the rollout of the TransApex scheme. This claim was made, despite the majority of electors voting against him. Indeed, most strategic planning consultation undertaken by BCC has revealed that community support for the tunnels is at best luke-warm and quite possibly openly hostile.
The initial community soundings are difficult to decipher. In reality, most planning consultations tend to attract the more discerning or activist views, which tend to be those most opposed to grand schemes promoting car use. At the recent fairs and workshops many have questioned whether the billions of dollars would be better spent improving suburban centres, public transport networks or installing more modest intelligent transport systems. Is that the predominant feeling, or are they the vocal minority, the rest just happy to see ever more money spent on indefinitely increasing road capacity.
But opposition is crumbling. The Labor majority has swung round behind the first phase and has given the NSBT and AE funding. In fact, these projects were always on the drawing board for a future Labor administration. It seems all the pollies want a piece of the action in major infrastructure. Community action will now only serve to make the tunnel-pill easier to swallow by having more trees planted at the tunnel exits.
But there is noticeable disquiet from within the bureaucracy. Some of this is undoubtedly a result of finance being diverted from the ‘softer’ council programs, such as equity and diversity, child immunisation, greenhouse gas action and bikeways, towards funding tunnels. (See Budget). This has resulted in job upheaval and pet projects being canned. But the disquiet is also driven by a more holistic (ie non-engineering) view of the city’s development, and in particular, how it deals with traffic congestion.
The unease extends very nearly to the top (and may also include the top), where more nuanced minds do not share their political masters’ view that building more roads and tunnels is the right answer.
‘Peak-oil’ is again on the news agenda; no doubt brought on by the Brent Crude being high and stable, well above $60 pb.
A senior BCC bureaucrat is agitating to get peak-oil reviewed and considered at Director-General level with the State government and at senior levels within council. A city facing rapidly inflating petrol prices is likely to have a very different complexion and infrastructure requirement. That bureaucrat is also keen for peak-oil to be discussed at this month’s CityShape Conference.
Most people would think it prudent to consider the risks presented by peak oil, before embarking on a spending spree to expand the city’s road network to the tune of $7bn. However, the Lord Mayor is keen not see peak oil flagged as a risk in public discussion. He has far too much political capital invested in keeping Brisbane residents moving around in their cars.
The bureaucracy may be forced to shut-up and put-up, but public discussion will not let the Lord Mayor’s benign assumptions on oil futures pass idly by. That’s the problem with public engagement – it doesn’t always give you the answer you were looking for.
Don't speak about the peak
Posted by Living with Matilda at 5:47 PM
Brisbane City Council is currently embarking on the ‘biggest urban road project proposed in Australia’. Superlatives aside, it’s enough to send a shiver down your spine and Brisbane back to the dark ages.
When the good residents of Brisbane elected Campbell Newman early last year, they trusted he would be the answer their traffic woes. For months prior to the election, Campbell’s beaming face had stared down at them from advertising hoardings, while they fumed in traffic jams. If they just sat tight in their cars for a little longer, he would solve everything, and you would soon be able to drive anywhere, anytime, without frustration.
At face value, the electors appeared to buy it and turned over a strong Labor majority to elect him Lord Mayor, albeit as a minority in his own council Chamber. An engineer – an army engineer – by trade, he was a ‘doer’, a ‘can-do’ man. He sees a problem and he fixes it.
Newman promised tunnels, and lots of them. Tunnels would cure Brisbane’s congestion chaos, currently draining $2.6bn per annum from the local economy. Five tunnels were proposed in all, criss-crossing the city form north to south, east to west, bypassing the city centre.
The scheme is called TransApex. The total cost would be $4.3bn over 20 years. Newman would go to George Street and Canberra and vie for State and Federal funds. The tunnels would be operated and part-funded by the private sector to run as a tolled system. The total public debt would be repaid by 2043.
The TransApex ‘Pre-feasibility Study’ argued that 2/3 of all CBD traffic is just passing through. Existing radial arterial routes are used as shortcuts predominantly by motorists travelling from the north to the west (and vice versa) attempting to avoid congestion on the inadequate Gateway Motorway and the tolled Gateway Bridge and Logan Motorway, which bypass the city to the south and east.
Sending cars underground will also have the added benefit of ‘freeing up’ surface space for public transport and urban renewal.
The first phase of TransApex, the North South Bypass Tunnel and Airport Extension, is now in procurement phase with drilling due to start in the next 12 months. Its costs have already blown-out, indicating the complete TransApex program could balloon to some $6-7 bn.
Councillor Newman declared his election victory gave him a full mandate for the rollout of the TransApex scheme. This claim was made, despite the majority of electors voting against him. Indeed, most strategic planning consultation undertaken by BCC has revealed that community support for the tunnels is at best luke-warm and quite possibly openly hostile.
The initial community soundings are difficult to decipher. In reality, most planning consultations tend to attract the more discerning or activist views, which tend to be those most opposed to grand schemes promoting car use. At the recent fairs and workshops many have questioned whether the billions of dollars would be better spent improving suburban centres, public transport networks or installing more modest intelligent transport systems. Is that the predominant feeling, or are they the vocal minority, the rest just happy to see ever more money spent on indefinitely increasing road capacity.
But opposition is crumbling. The Labor majority has swung round behind the first phase and has given the NSBT and AE funding. In fact, these projects were always on the drawing board for a future Labor administration. It seems all the pollies want a piece of the action in major infrastructure. Community action will now only serve to make the tunnel-pill easier to swallow by having more trees planted at the tunnel exits.
But there is noticeable disquiet from within the bureaucracy. Some of this is undoubtedly a result of finance being diverted from the ‘softer’ council programs, such as equity and diversity, child immunisation, greenhouse gas action and bikeways, towards funding tunnels. (See Budget). This has resulted in job upheaval and pet projects being canned. But the disquiet is also driven by a more holistic (ie non-engineering) view of the city’s development, and in particular, how it deals with traffic congestion.
The unease extends very nearly to the top (and may also include the top), where more nuanced minds do not share their political masters’ view that building more roads and tunnels is the right answer.
‘Peak-oil’ is again on the news agenda; no doubt brought on by the Brent Crude being high and stable, well above $60 pb.
A senior BCC bureaucrat is agitating to get peak-oil reviewed and considered at Director-General level with the State government and at senior levels within council. A city facing rapidly inflating petrol prices is likely to have a very different complexion and infrastructure requirement. That bureaucrat is also keen for peak-oil to be discussed at this month’s CityShape Conference.
Most people would think it prudent to consider the risks presented by peak oil
The bureaucracy may be forced to shut-up and put-up, but public discussion will not let the Lord Mayor’s benign assumptions on oil futures pass idly by. That’s the problem with public engagement – it doesn’t always give you the answer you were looking for.
Posted by Living with Matilda at 5:47 PM
Disclaimer:
| I am employed by Brisbane City Council. All views expressed in this blog are my own and in no way reflect the views of my employer. |
Weasel Word(s) of the day:
From WeaselWords.com.au
Recent posts:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home